Judge favors residents in lawsuit against Encinitas

ENCINITAS -- A Superior Court judge handed a victory to a
residents group Thursday, ordering the city to prepare an
environmental study before it further develops the planned Hall
property park.

In a tentative ruling, Judge Michael M. Anello sided with
Citizens for Quality of Life, a group of neighbors that has cited
evidence of toxic contamination and has demanded such studies at
the park site west of Interstate 5 and south of Santa Fe Drive.

"We're vindicated," said Everett DeLano III, the neighbors'
attorney. "This is what we've been saying all along, and the judge
in his (tentative) ruling agrees with us."

"The ruling doesn't really change the city's plans," Morrison
said. "Everything (Anello) is talking about is what we were
planning to do already."

A prepared statement from Mayor Maggie Houlihan said the city
"may or may not seek an appeal."

"We are surprised and disappointed that the court linked the
cleanup and the abatement of the nuisance conditions with the
ultimate use and development of the property," the press release
states. "We continue to believe that the lawsuit is baseless, and
the absence of any impact of the court's ruling on the city's past
actions and future plans supports this belief."

In its lawsuit, the residents group cited city records that
identified traces of pesticides, herbicides and petroleum products
as being present on the 43-acre future park site. Those chemicals
pose a risk to neighbors, groundwater and the San Elijo Lagoon, the
residents' lawsuit states.

In a 2001 environmental analysis, a consultant hired by the city
studied 47 soil samples and all but one contained detectable
concentrations of pesticides.

Citizens for Quality of Life also claimed the cleanup ran afoul
of the California Environmental Quality Act.

No such studies were necessary, said city officials, who have
likened the $483,000 removal of dismantled greenhouses to the
cleaning of a residential back yard.

Anello disagreed in his ruling.

"The initial 'debris cleanup' should also have been subjected to
environmental review as part of the larger demolition and
development plan contemplated by the city," Anello wrote, citing
the California Environmental Quality Act.

A thorough environmental assessment must be integrated into the
planning process before development can begin, the ruling
states.

Encinitas paid $17.2 million for the former nursery in 2001.

Another point of disagreement is when, and to what extent,
environmental studies should be completed.

Anello's ruling states that Encinitas abused its discretion and
disobeyed the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to
complete an environmental study for the entire project -- which
included cleanup of the razed greenhouses.

Anello discounted the city's argument that aging greenhouses
cluttering the property presented a danger to trespassers.

The city presented no evidence of imminent danger that required
cleanup without environmental review, Anello wrote.

"The city was required to view the cleanup, demolition, and
construction of a new park or other facility as one project and
conduct environmental review of the project as a whole," Anello's
ruling states. "(The city) cannot segregate the project into
several smaller parts and conduct environmental review as to each
individual part."

The city showed no evidence to demonstrate that the cleanup did
not disturb toxins in the soil, Anello wrote.